tv LIVE Police Commission SFGTV February 10, 2016 5:30pm-8:01pm PST
>> president loftus, i would like to call roll. >> please do. >> commissioner president loftus, here. >> commissioner advice turman, commissioner marshall, commissioner dejesus, commissioner hwang, commissioner mazzucco. you also have police chief suhr. >> i'm going to propose we move item no. 3 early i did -- in the discussion on our agenda and put it under, chief, i know you are going to give a presentation on the
item. >> next item. >> public comment. general public comment. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks, to the commission, whole and not individual commissioners or department or occ pes nell. under police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police or occ personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented by the public, but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel. should refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public
comment. public speaker: i grew up in the south and the attitudes of the cops in the south were pretty horrible. when i was coming up, a black man couldn't walk the streets no matter how hot it was otherwise you would go to jail. my concern is to whether or not in the south there is known to be a confederate rule and i have noticed the same attitude here in the north with the police officers having that southern mentality. i was wondering if it was some sort of way of judging who gets to put on a blue uniform. if they are allegiance with the confederate flag should they be enforced or given the responsibility to enforce the law that they fought against. you know. they don't believe that all men are created equal. should you actually give them that rule where
they have to go out and enforce the law and then put on a blue uniform. i don't believe they have the respect for the blue uniform if their ancestors were wearing the uniform. they put this uniform on and they disgrace that uniform. that is my comment. >> thank you. next speaker. >> public speaker: good evening, my name is michael pet trellis. there could be no relief for the mayor regarding the murder. yesterday several people were arrested protesting the mayor. the mayor has to get out of city hall and hold town hall meetings.
he is not going to be able to be an effective leader by hiding away from people and going to events at fancy hotels and avoiding the anger in the community. i want to thank the leaders who have come out and who have set an example for the mayor to follow. i have to repeat it. mayor lee get out of your office and hold town hall meetings now. the second item i want to address. can you show on your screen. this is the website for "not on my watch" this is an effort to confront prejudice with the department. it tooks a public records act request to find out that this website and other
social media is costing taxpayers $16,000. $16,000 has been spent on this social media campaign and you are not disclosing the cost on this website. it is not enough. for you to think that social media, okay, you can stop showing that now. it is not enough to make-up for the lack of town hall meetings with mayor ed lee. this is all pr that you are putting on the web. it's not going to lead to justice. the last item i would like to mention has to do with my demand for the past 2 months. that you developed for the department for regulation from social media. i heard from michael in the week that the regs he's drafted for you he wants to present in march.
no date was given for when that could happen. there really needs to be this public discussion about the departments use of social media because we are finding out with this not on my watch website, it's costing taxpayers dollars, our dollars. i want to know how you are spending your money and with a your rules are guiding your social media because you are not being fair with how you regard mugshots. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. good evening, clyde, welcome. public speaker: let's go to the heart of matter. how long are we going to talk about this? hey, mary woods is still here. when was the last time you
saw someone get killed by a taser? you haven't. i talked to you today. brooklyn. steve is a good neighbor in new york. i said how many times have you used the taser in new york? thousands. how many people are killed in new york? >> common sense says you are not going to taser a 90-year-old woman? why don't we have them? c'mon people. would it have worked? i don't know. but it's a lot better than that that gun. public speaker: from the foundation and from the participation for the
last percent in review. i want to speak in particular to the town hall meetings that you have organized per district the one in bayview and some of the staff attended the one in the tenderloin. it is a good intent . however the police presence was overwhelming. there is a signature and by the time we were finished we were told to vacate the room now. this is not sufficient. as you remember there was a study of policing in 2009 and mark was holding town hall meetings, but at the end
she was doing the briefing and she would use an analysis of all those readings and what were the trends that were important. this is what you should do and to see from you a briefing and one of these sessions and analysis. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. public speaker: my name is harry. i have lived here for more than 30 years. this is the third time that people have been trying to introduce. i find it in comprehensible. when you vote, when you read the news, when someone was tasered or someone seriously damaged, that's on your conscious. all of you need to act and
stop pretending there is not a problem with this department. the police officers association should not be running san francisco's police policy. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, next speaker. public speaker: good evening, my name is johnson. i think that life and these are failures in the police department. what i have seen are totally
no one talks about the real thing. and i think this needs to be directly in kind with the police department where that do have disabled and they are inclined with dyslexia and i don't think it's been studied in the police department. i think some of our police department have been not underneath positions for that. we had a really good in 2001 and they stole my passport. now i'm going to revenue to get my passport back. i found out a
little later and it would be a lot better because my mathematics is really weak. i'm a lot more improved because of the city college and the police department. i know that i have been dropping weight but really healthy lately and really involved with heavy equipment on my back. i'm automatic in engineering in college. thank you. >> thank you for your
comments. next speaker. good evening, ms. brown and welcome. public speaker: again, my name is paulette brown. i would like to use the overhead as i always do concerning my son, aubrey abrakasa. to this day, his case isn't solved. i worry about the disparity and race is -- racism of our children's cases not solved. steinle's case was solved. why isn't our cases solved. i always bring up mario
woods. i understand, i am with his mother. i understand how she feels. i have been on the battlefield for the last 9 years. it will be 10 years, a decade this year on the 14th of august will be 10 years since my son's murder. i always come with pictures of my son. because i don't want another mother to go through what i did. i had to watch my son in a casket. i relive this everyday. this is a picture i have of my son. after an autopsy. he has a mother and father
that raised him well. i had to walk across the stage to receive his diploma. this is what mario's mother has to do to receive his diploma. this is not easy for us. i bring this up because i want justice for my child. i say that all lives matter. all lives matter. black lives matter too, but i want justice for my child. i have been coming here bringing up the awareness not just for my son, but for all mothers and fathers suffering in silence and mothers and fathers that don't want to come out and speak. i stand for them. my purpose that i got into this is because of my son. he was only 17 years old. a young boy being shot down by community
violence. we want the same justice for our children that you are giving to every person. i'm a taxpayer. i want the same justice for my son. i don't want to have to see, i want to get rid of these pictures. i don't want to keep carrying these pictures. i will do this until my son's case is solved. i want his case solved. >> if anyone has any information on aubrey abrakasa, please call police. public speaker: i want to address the police commission if i may.
i have a couple questions and i will be out of the way. the police commission of a shooting. i want to know from the police commission can that be possible? >> in public comment we are not able to respond to questions. you can ask a request and we'll take it down. >> it's not a question. the public wants a demonstration. a taser gun. how is it used that you will command that and for a new to bring somebody down and kill him.
why not use a taser gun. >> did you have public comment? >> there is limitations to what we can say as to public comment. tonight it will be discussed but we are not taking any action tonight. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: i don't think i have time to do everything. i hope i have enough time. i have been watching you on tv for a long time and throwing stuff at the television and decided to come down and see if i can offer anything. i wanted to
compliment the commission on your work and most recently commissioner hwang for that you published in the san francisco chronicle. i think it was very good. i come to you as a former city planner and director of civil rights commission and affirmative action. these notes that you see here start to talk about a contextual division of policing that started since slavery. i started as a form of police planning as an absolutely connected function to city planning, goals and values. when police officers essentially blue
collar workers, no pun intended when they are acting in an environment tell people who belong here and who doesn't belong here and acting on that ideology, i have listed some issues that i hope you pay attention to additional data to review. this the important on who gets killed by whom, what zip codes they come from. the police ought to be living in the community. that's a 50-year-old requirement. some officers come from areas i won't name them that are known racist communities surrounding san francisco. are they impacted by where they live when they come across that bridge. i mentioned police here. let's
say anytime a white person shoots a person of color that it's a mental breakdown. when it's black on black it's criminal. let's assume that. we need some attention to the health and mental health to the officers including a large number of domestic abuses cases in police homes and they come on to the job. you know all about that. before you get to a shooting policy, you ought to know what you are doing. here is an edge weapon used on an officer. that man is alive who did
that. the question is why? what were the factors. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: thank you, my name is andrea. with brooklyn cop watch. our police department does not have tasers. some part because of the example of san francisco. i was very impressed with outside of the bay with the reasons for san francisco not having tasers. i have to say it's astonishing. what horrible it is to be on your agenda.
how disingenuous it is to look at the death of mario wood to look at the lack of taseers. that is not what killed that man. what killed that man was an incredible lack of sensitivity to the value of black life. that's what killed him. and it's a deeply rooted culture in san francisco. i have been coming here for 30 years. we used to protest in the mid-80s. there is an officer with a swastika in a paddy wagon. he was getting his picture taken and didn't know why the worthiness of the picture. he didn't know that swastika was inappropriate. what's happening is the department of the police is so deep rooted in the
culture in the department. it's going to take a major overhaul. if you want to improve relations in this community you have to fire those officers. you have no absolute understanding of what real community safety is about. and you are dominating and controlling and damaging and harming this community. you are inappropriate to leave in 2016 this modern urban city. i would also say this: that just yesterday another study came out about tasers that when employed they disorient. they interfere with the cognitive function. when officers deal with them, that officer is compromised
fundamentally. if you put any weapon into the hands of a racist, it's going to be used in a racist way. i don't care what you put in their hands, if there is not a respect for human life, you are going to have a bad outcome. police commission, don't consider this item. don't even talk about it. it disrespect mario woods and his family. thank you. [ applause ] public speaker: good -- i was going to say i find it offensive and obscene to maintain that tasers are being considered now in order to reduce the possibility of officer involved shootings or in custody shootings.
research across california that after tasers were introduced there was a huge increase in deaths in the first year, in the second year decrease, still it was 150% more than when before tasers were introduced. what's even more obscene about this is that all across the countries regular police training say in a situation when an officer or somebody else's life is in danger, you do not use tasers. you use guns. and the reason for that is because from the cops viewpoint, tasers are only 75% effective and they don't want to have the 25% chance that it might not bring somebody
down. so their training is that in a life or death type situation, they use guns. so, to tell us that police are having tasers is going to reduce our being killed is just the an obscene lie . it's also, so how will tasers be used? 80% of tasers used across the country is used against unarmed people and many of them if you go on youtube, you see instance after instance of people being tased when they were handcuffed or hog tied or both. so tasers are not going to reduce in custody death. that is going to be another way to
terrify us into submissions. if police can't regulate guns, who is to say they are going to regulate tasers. they are a dangerous weapon. i have a heart condition myself but i look like the hale and hardy person. no police would ask me whether or not i have a heart condition before tasing me. it's absurd to think about it. what we really need instead of tasers what we really need is justice of course. what we really need is a crisis team that can go and talk to people and calm them down. i worked for a hospital for
many years. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker? public speaker: my name is nancy. i'm a san francisco resident. i work for the law. when i found out the taser proposal was going to be discussed here, i took off early. it's unfathomable to me that adding another weapon to an arsenal that police when they are out of control is going to solve the problem. it's going to exacerbate the problem. i don't think it's a problem with police training. i believe the problem is with the policies that allow the police to draw weapons for people who have mental
health issues, people who are down and out. i work in this neighborhood. i'm with the freedom socials party. we see what happened. it's the result of the economic down turn that's forcing people who used to have jobs to become homeless, to become out on the streets, to become potential victims of police violence and abuse. that's not right. this is not the city that i want to live in. i think instead what we need to do is to have an elected police review board that is run by civilians because i'm sorry, what we have here doesn't have the power necessary to make the changes by electing people, our own peers to stand for and be able to investigate independently and have the power to have independent investigations as well as the power
to fire and discipline police officers if an investigation comes to that. we want a jury of our peers, we want also bodies of our peers that can help ensure that anybody who walks down the street, no matter what their color or mental health status or sexuality or immigrant status is not shot at in fears for their lives. that's not right. it's kind of plain and -- simple. we should also elect a city prosecutor who is independent from the city attorney's office and the board of supervisors. that independent person is
important to be able to be more objective. thank you very much and i hope you take it off the table. thank you. >> next speaker? just a point of clarification, there will be no action taken on these use of force policies that the department will be presenting their request to this commission. just so everyone is clear. public speaker: hi, this past april my son who is black was coming home with his friends who are also black. the officer approached their car and harassed and violently attacked him. because the pro bar, the occ is not able to discipline and the only recourse is a civil lawsuit.
the aclu has filed a lawsuit on his behalf. i did everything in my power to give my son every opportunity. he was not in trouble and went on to a university. in the final semester, the sf p.d. traumatized us and had a major impact in our lives. i have never heard 1 story of police violence to any of his white peers. but the san francisco police department have made police violence a right of passage for people of color. i have seen sfpd kill half breeds. i never feel my son is safe when he is out. san francisco police recently beat a black bicyclist and black kids filming a video.
after the citywide celebration they beat a black man on the city streets. last year a mother was harassed by cops and they pulled out her hair extensions. something needs to change and tasers are not the answer. racial profiling and excessive use of force against community of color has to stop. the last of police accountability has to stop. we need to repeal the police officers bill of rights that shield violent cops from prosecution and keeps them on the streets. a civil rights investigation, reform needed are an over all of the sfpd pro bar and the p oa. we need to evaluate performance and look into factors such as excessive force claims, arrest for
resisting arrest and arrest when charges are dropped. you know which police officers regularly harass them but these never seem to be heard or inform in performance evaluation. currently there is not out there to help victims and families of police violences. i have gone into extreme debt for medical and damages for psychological trauma if you live in areas of a community where there is violence towards people of color. >> next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, my name is roger scott. a teacher at city college. i have been there for 40 years and also on the executive board of the american federation of teachers for a
time. i also served in the army and i'm in the peace corp. i have been arrested a few times for civil disobedience but never faced any serious charges. i consider myself a friend of police officers and have law enforcement people in my family. i believe police officers should be well trained, well paid and well equipped, but i don't believe they should be equipped with tasers. they are obviously dangerous weapons. if anyone in this room doubts that, i will convince you the world is not flat and we have a nation of equality. to confirm other volatile situations, i believe police officers should wear vest to protect themselves. it's my opinion that police officers who killed mario woods
should be prosecuted for what i regard as a summary execution. if the officers had shields and used them judiciously, i believe mario woods could have been disarmed. i don't know the poa personally, but maybe i should thank him for his insults and ridicule for those who want justice. i disagree with him on many issues but i do share the views like law enforcement officers and everyone else. like those ideal with at the city college don't deal with the workers and they should have some allegiance to workers. i believe that all people including the police officers facing serious charges should have adequate representation and should be afforded due process. however in the mario woods
killing, they violated those five officers in my view violated his due process and violated his human rights by taking his life without justification. the other concern i have and it's a major one which i believe is one that you don't have the power to act on. the right of is self defense has limits. if someone throws a rock at me or threatens me with a knife or club but isn't close enough to do serious harm, i don't have the right as self defense to kill that person. if i did, i would be prosecuted. in fact, jeff darchi said recently, if i killed someone in cold blood, i would be prosecuted. police should be held to the same if they take someone's life, they should be prosecuted. >> thank you, mr. scott.
next speaker? public speaker: good evening. my name is karen flesh man. i come here tonight to speak on behalf of the coalition but to speak from my perspective as a mother, as a citizen and lifelong advocate for young people and social justice. the culture of san francisco calls for a very different way of policing than the one that we have today. right now we have the worst of both world's. we have a high degree of lawlessness and open use drug use in our streets and a high level of homeless in our streets and a total lack of empathy and accountability in our police force and use of force and
over policing. i work in the bayview and i have observed police action there on a regular bases and they are very disproportionate and very rapid response. it's a very context to someone that happened to mario woods can occur. chief suhr, under your leadership we have ample examples of systemic racism. it's time you take accountability. someone has to take accountability in your department in order to change the culture of your department. it's great that there is an investigation but we need answers now. when 911 happened, you do a complete investigation of what happened to make sure it doesn't happen again. why is that so controversial, why is that so bizarre that we
can't execute a comprehensive independent investigation of what happened in the mario woods case. then we need to convene the best minds of the bay area. we have brilliant people here and let's gather them from the business community, from the youth of element community, from the justice community and let's completely redesign the way we do policing in san francisco to reflect a unique community and our values. let's implement restorative justice, mental health first responders, mental health care, addiction treatment and workforce development so people have an opportunity to participate in this economy with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. why do we have such enormous unemployment and job lessness in our communities of color. i urge on you this commission not to just think of mario woods and his family, but consider the
young people who filmed his shooting. they are standing there going home from school on the bus and they took out their phones and filmed that and they put on the internet for their peers to see that. what will we do if we allow that to happen and don't take immediate action to address that. >> thank you very much. next speaker? public speaker: good evening commissioners. my name is david elliot louis with the health board of san francisco and most importantly, i'm part of the cit working group mental health working group
and cit trainer, crisis intervention team that help police deal with behavioral crisis. i'm here to report to you that we have made good progress which will hopefully deliver to the chief soon and we have already e-mailed commissioner, president loftus a copy. this is a work of many. i have worked on this. marion office of complaints, mayor's office of disability, commander sullivan, lieutenant mario molina. it's a community police effort to come up with this. we try to incorporate the best of the report. we looked at all of the chief's bulletin use of force considered 5.01 and 5.02. i think we've come up with something that you will find helpful.
we hope in your commission hearing that you will have the highlights of this new structure of how it works in the department and some of the actual tactics, including tactical position but rather than rush in, firing back away to get help, slow it down. this is in conjunction with best practices called by perf that police executive research form that i know the chief traveled to learn from. i think we have something helpful to learn from. that is why i light a candle. that is a better way. i want to take note that chief suhr has been very supportive of cit and the department and bringing forward all the recruits now. there is training and
including shoot, don't shoot scenarios which is helpful. this is new stuff and helpful stuff. there are positive changes happening in use of force and a new working group as well looking at use of force that will enforce community input at community levels and work with our own cit mental health and working group. i think the department is willing to make changes. chief surf is supportive of these changes and we hope the community involvement shows a way. thank you. >> next speaker? good evening, mr. miller, welcome. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. the fact that tasers are
being reintroduced tonight by chief suhr as a use of force option is crude. the people of san francisco stood up four times in the last few years and said they don't want tasers. yet, this abusive chief and his abusive department have decided to reintroduce this. it's a slap in the face of the community of san francisco. to answer when was the last time someone was killed with tasers. fact of the matter is in palo alto last year about 9:50 p.m.. a person with schizophrenia disorder was killed. i should also add in the beginning of the year january 26, 2015, in san francisco county jail, alvin haynes died and document have yet to be released but
admitted by the court that deputies altercation with the inmate definitely seems to be a likely possibility. we don't know whether tasers were involved in that incident. the cases of tasers do go up when we talk to you. the reported number is 916 and that number again is always low because it doesn't account for in custody deaths which are quite often covered up for fraudulent medical terms for sudden is in custody death syndrome. let's look at the fact that this no account department has been successfully sued for the misuse of tasers years before anyone near being allowed to have them. the city sued for this because of the abuse at the hands of san francisco sheriff's deputies and san
francisco police including jessie serna. that's already happened. in 2007, united nations declared it a torturous device. there is more to say on the matter. the fact remains that mario woods not dead because police did not have tasers, he's dead because of a brutal department and civilians. if we are talking about modifications to the use of force policy there have to be modifications that have humanity in mind and not further militarizing our law enforcement.
public speaker: hello, i'm here on the mario woods murder. it a problem. we don't even use guns in london for example. it's an enormous city and they don't use guns nor a taser. i don't know why we feel we have to be so aggressive and militarized here. there is so much skill and compassion that can be done. this has to be like involved 100 times. it has to be the first thing we do instead of something in their pocket that maybe come out because their guns are always the
first, it feels like. i know that not all cops are bad, but it takes a few. there is always the danger thing because it's not gone. every police officer can be texting like that. i don't trust any of them anymore. i stop and watch every police officer encounter with everybody if i can. even if that person called the own cops for their own sake. everyone needs to be protected from the police now and the last thing they need is another weapon. public speaker: my name is tony. i'm here for all of those
affected by aggressive police force. we need police reform immediately. we need to get rid of officers who are responsible for use of force immediately. the officer that executed mario woods should not be on a paid job right now. they should be in jail. there is all these statistics by tasers. over 100 people are killed by tasers. we don't need san francisco to be responsible for more deaths by tasers. i want to share this story sent to me. it's a video of an incident in a latin america country. i don't know which one. but there was a man who was emotionally unstable with a
machete in his hands and waving a large machete around. this is a 6-minute video. within about a minute or two, about probably 8 or 10 yellow jacketed police unarmed surround this man. but they don't come inclose. they stay at a far distance just watching carefully, thought fully, cautiously to see what this man is going to do. they are trying to assess the situation. they didn't shoot him down. he was a wild man and doing wild circles. as they stood in the distance, circled the man, they waited for a moment. you can tell they were professional police unarmed.
occasionally there was one or two of them, but ultimately after 5 or 6 minutes, one of the officers was behind that man and caught that moment and rushed it and caught that man from behind on both elbows and the other officers came in and put him on the ground and no one was killed. there are so many millions of choices that san francisco police could have done the day mario woods got killed. it's shameful, chief suhr that you came out immediately what was done. it's shameful that you are still sit ting in your uniform. you should -- listen to the people. the mayor needs to fire you. >> next speaker, please.
good evening and welcome. public speaker: i would like to direct my remarks to the audience here. this is san francisco, all of us. these will be pointed out here with extreme focus that greg suhr is trying to detective the residents of san francisco into thinking that the murder execution by sfpd of mario woods is an issue of an imperfect a legal police policy of use of force directive. a slick performance behind closed doors with public relations consultants tailoring a carefully styled production for the cameras. it is no different than what he
had to say about the an acquiring of tasers of the sfpd. he stated the use of tasers would have prevented the death of mario woods and would the use of night sticks done the same thing? immediately after the murder of mario woods that he was hit three times with a beanbag. he like end that to be hit at 450 miles per hour. mario woods was already incapacitated. he could barely stand straight and told us mario was pepper prayed and sure enough half blind. any teenager at that point could have walked up to mario in his risk with a
30-inch nightstick, standard police equipment, end of conflict, no 40 bullet discharged by rabid gun flinging cops, no tasers and the son of glen woods, alive but bruised. take a look at the video. does anyone see one intelligent well trained cop? not a single one. would greg suhr look into the camera and tell the residents of san francisco and tell the people that what happened was good police work. i don't think so. murder is murder. deflection of murder is the police method. don't be fooled by public
relations consultants that have been standard police equipment and by taxpayers of san francisco against their own best interest. remember, good police work is self-evident. >> thank you. next speaker? good evening and welcome. public speaker: my name is jackie garza, a san francisco resident. suppose it's solution to deadly police shootings. it's an -- apparent intent to focus away from this tragedy. to give police tasers, chief suhr and mayor
lee should be reviewing this. this will lead to more arrest and prosecution. adding weapons for officers has had no effect on the number of officer involved shootings. a 2009 ucsf shooting showed an increase in such shootings. tasers are dangerous and painful and have you heard it's contributed to over 600 deaths. this has caused excruciating pain and paralyzing muscles and causing destruction of bodily functions.
stop this madness. >> thank you. good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, i think the chief has to take responsibility for the murder of mario woods. you are responsible here. that's why we have a police commission to take control of the police department. they don't control you. these orders are laughable and insult -- because you don't enforce them. you must not escalate the violence.
you must reject wholeheartedly the tasers. they will do nothing to improve the safety of san francisco's citizens nor the police. they will only increase the disrespect the people have for the police because there will be also accountability than we already have. the biggest problem we now have is the lack of accountability for the murders the police perpetrate, the racism the police perpetrate. i urge you to reject tasers completely. and look at the money and how much money would be spent to buy these weapons. i read this order that you are passing out and i'm guessing it's written by the taser corporation, a very wealthy corporation that has a lot of money to spend that
enforces the use of lethal weapons of torture on people nationwide. >> thank you, next speaker. public speaker: good evening. jennifer, director, i want to redefine the use of force and use the standard of use of force what our community standard is on use of force. however we are really discouraged that as we move away from using force and sanctity of life that at the same time an introduction of yet another weapon comes to the table. it really calls to question the entire intent of moving away. in intuitively people might jump to electronic weapons use of response,
that might make sense, but in reality, it doesn't control shootings. you have to look at the independent studies because so many are not independent. a 2009 study found that fatal shootings of police doubled after the department adopted tasers. it stays above what it had been before tasers. tasers kill also in custody deaths. this is especially true for vulnerable people. after tasers got introduced, sudden deaths increased by 500% then it went down 150 higher. there is a lot of reasons for this. this weapon must be used in close range. they are rarely used on armed suspects. they are used on bodies that have to be removed by medical
personnel. most of you know this already. they are connected to tasers international. we have a really big opportunity here and it's birthed out of tragedy. we have this moment for true systemic change in the police department. we have a movement that would not only result in keeping officers safe but keeping members of the public safe. a movement that can transform police to justice. but introducing the electronic control weapons slaps back into justice. it knocks the wind out of change. please, take it off the table. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. public speaker: thank you,
good evening commissioners, my name is shannon. a cofounder of 123 to replace ed lee. i have police officers in my family. some of whom i would consider the good ones. i want to put that in context for my next commentary. i will light you up. these are the words that brian said to sandra bland said to her with a taser before pulling her out of the car which she afterwards committed suicide. i bring this up because we clearly have a police force as evidenced by the shocking and outrageous text message that we know about now and e-mails. we have a police force that
needs to change and not with the tools in their arsenal, but aside -- rather the tools that are given them to handle the stressful situations they face. i think one of the most important things is that right now the labor practices of the police department are in humane. you just had our entire police force on daily duty for 3 weeks. that is in humane. that is asking for problems. you have to start looking into the labor practices to looking at what are the mental health challenges that are in a cultural and endemic with the police force.
i outlined several points including implementing a mindfulness base production program which has been well documented to increase the quality of life for first responders, but also to help them make better decisions in crisis situations. none of us know what we would do when we were faced with very difficult stressful situations. so i honor that those are difficult decisions to make. and it's absolutely imperative that you give police officers the correct tools to deal with those situations. not more tools to escalate with them. >> thank you. next speaker? is there any further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening. i'm a san francisco native born and raised here. is several years ago in a
planning commission meeting for a direct act of protest, a friend of my joked that the sfpd was a special case. he said in san francisco, we've trained our police so well that they come out to you and say, excuse me sir, i will be your arresting officer today but i appreciate if you don't make me carry you for the die in. i have acupuncture on my back. that a bond can be developed between a protester and police. this is especially tragically true for the people of color. the sfpd is in fact for the exceptional police department for many san francisco communities. many san franciscans watching from chicago, baltimore and new
york and watching the mario woods video, san francisco is not any different. we have the same model of police force as the rest of america. we need rapid change in san francisco and tasers should not be a part of it. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment. can people lineup if there is anybody else who want to speak? thank you. good evening and welcome. public speaker: hi. i was watching a show on nhk japanese television and a great program called "from the ground up" about policing in the community. one of the things i found
really helpful was that they wore blade resisting gloves and i did look that up and apparently they are easy to get. they are often used in factories where people are using to get their hands cutoff and things of that nature. now i know that someone can get stabbed but it's possible to have the gloves that can possibly go up the arm and approached with a shield and then possibly pepper spray. i know pepper spray when i have had it in my eyes i can't see. i have to ask this question, i want to know whose gun is in san francisco's back right now in whose gun is in your
back, chief suhr? something going on in the city. mr. o'halloran, if you are, i read the article, are you? i'm sorry. you look like him. i'm so tired of coming here. i was asked if i had a job. i just got my record expunged. i find it insult that that one of your officers asked me shouldn't i go to bed so i can get up to go to bed early in the morning. it was 7:30 p.m.. i'm upset at how we were
treated at the protest. i have had an officer put his baton into my breast uch -- up against the wall for no reason at the ed lee inauguration. i am tired of seeing black people murdered on the internet. i am so tired. i am angry. i want to be home with my husband. after a hard days work in the kitchen as a chef and the officer says what kind of a chef are you? i said a raw food chef and he said, that's easy, you don't have to cook, do you. >> good evening and welcome. public speaker: hello, my name is arlene. i agree with all the
issues of tasers being brought up. i believe officers have to be trained for discrimination. police need to be trained in deescalation of situations. they shoot to kill. everybody is shooting at once. first thought is guns guns guns. i don't believe in putting another weapon into the hands of police. one thing i haven't heard since i have been in this room is what concerns me very much personally. i know a few people who are in their 30s and 40s who have pace makers. if you tase somebody with a pacemaker, they are dead. you can't tell if somebody is wearing a pacemaker just
like you can't tell their health. tasers are very dangerous. 1 person described all the things that could happen. if you tase someone with a taser, they are dead. i absolutely reject this use and the culture of the police in this country have to be restructured. thank you. public speaker: i guess the contention of use of tasers is bad. you might as well shoot me dead. i have already made my will out. i would rather be dead than to
be physically and permanently injured or psychically injured where i would loses function and ability. i think this situation also goes to some of the police officers in scenarios when they are being tased for practice. they sustain career ending injuries. and so it's a misnomer that these weapons are somehow safe, that you can tase someone and then the victim will be able to go to starbucks and get a latte or something. i just think that when you look at the statistics saying this is a torture device, the excessive use of this weapon whereas officers don't normally tase the person
once. they will tase them, 2-11 times. they will tase a person continuously when you look at the records, the documentation. hannah she was tased 11 times. there was $8 million. tase of death, the increase usage of weapons where he thinks she's grabbing a weapon and they grab another one. it's too much of a problem. if they would have
surrounded him with shields and stopped him, we wouldn't have this problem, but you tell me you don't know where your shields are. you can't use them. a nightstick, versus a stake knife. they could have used the weapon that they normally carry with them instead of where are you going to get the money for this? lee is talking about cutting the budget and talking about more deescalation training. where is the money coming from. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. sergeant, please call the next line item.
>> item 2, reports and announcements, chiefs report, discussion. this item is to allow the chief of police to report on recent police activities and make announcements. the chief will give an update on the following topic. summary of super bowl, presentation of the department's propose fiscal year 2016-2017 budget and use of force draft policy. >> chief surf -- chief suhr. i will speak to the item talked about. a lot of discussion has been made into the use of force. deputy chief
alley and jean, lieutenant mario molina, spag noeley, michael plat us as well as the district attorney and considered policies from around the country, recommendations, community input from the work groups and on an on. that's just to name a few to arrive at the new policies that have been presented to you. i will highlight a few things from the different policies. the first policy 5.01 from the use of force. there was copies on the table. the safe gaerding and
protecting life. disproportionate ability. creating time and distance before we would get to force. there is a section in here on as you are trying to communicate, there could be reasons why a subject might be non-compliant because of various reasons of diminished capacity. this is but a draft order and starting point for this commission's consideration. we separated out the reporting into it's own new general order. this was recommended in several of the other orders that we reviewed just for simplicity and to keep them for your consideration separated out. further in 5.02, i might add in the use of force, there are new prohibitions reported
specifically i know earlier in the week, the san jose police department newly prohibited choke holds. the new policy prohibits not only choke holds which are currently prohibited but also takes the carotid out of our use of force. and the use of life emphasizing deescalation, proportionality especially dealing with weapons other than firearms in this particular order is is straight prohibition of firing at vehicles unless the officer proposes and immediate threat by the vehicle, this is consistent in policy with new york city since 1972.
that's a new recommendation in this policy and there has been much conversation today in a lot of the trainings that we received back east. there was a referral today about london in the united kingdom about 6% of those agencies have tasers when they are dealing with situations. there are resources that are called for. so in keeping with that, i am not asking that the entire department get tasers, i'm asking for about 5% of our swat team and our specialist officers be afforded tasers. there is a requirement of this policy that require all of our officers, although they would not be cit officers, they would be required to take that training and they would only be allowed to use the tasers or the conductive energy device when the
suspect is armed with a weapon short of a firearm and they would be prohibited from using that conductive energy device on an unarmed is subject or a person who is only a danger to themselves in a variety of other situations. with that, i will submit these drafts to the commission for your consideration. >> thank you, chief, so process point that i want to make to everybody on the commission and those watching at home and care about this issue. this is a starting point of what will be in san francisco about use of force on this department. this is the department's initial draft coming to us. we just got it. it will be posted on the commission's website.
i will ask that we keep to old copies to evaluate the differences to see what direction and what we are here to do tonight is is make sure that the commission has a chance to talk about some things that are important to us. i is certainly have a number of those pieces that you talked about and set out the past forward for how we get to actually reengineering for how we use force. what i will say, chief is seeing the president report on the 21st century is that policies eat people for lunch. we are going through that. i think it would be helpful to hear from you how you believe the proposal from the department is going to impact the culture of the
police department. >> again, all of these policies emphasize doing many other things. the greatest of which is creating time and before resorting to use of force. to that about repositioning in fact just this week, as was brought up again by public comment instead of just having our firearm qualification is now an entire day. in that day is emphasizing trying to get not to get into a situation where you might have to use force let alone a firearm. it's about the policy, it's about training of the policy. we've already put things in place like the point of a firearm is reportable use of force. it was brought up about the baton. there is a requirement that all officers carry their batons
and some in these orders are going to be put out as department bulletins and supervisors monitoring all calls for service with persons with a weapon. the officers responsibilities in those incidents, again all created to cause everybody to slowdown, create time and distance because the amount of times where an officer has to use significant force or lethal force happens in a matter of minutes. so, for every 5 minutes you can lengthen an incident it becomes that much more practical to disable the force at the very minimum use of force. >> i would invite questions.
what we'll do is what we did similar with body cameras. we took a different approach and put together a group of stakeholders to give us their input on the policies and identify areas where it might improve from here. we will be talking to advocates, lawyers, folks who have worked with us in the past to advise us. then we are also going to send that version of the policy to the united states department of justice. as i indicated last week they agreed around the point around urgency, we don't have to wait for 2 years to wait before that is adopted and that review will also help. we will be be very familiar with these orders. they will likely be different when they come to us. when they come to us after the department of justice has come with their reviews, we
will have community hearings where we'll be able to hear from everybody about those recommendations and whether or not their fit for san francisco and after that it will come to the commission for final adoption. depending on how long the department of justice takes, i'm hopeful it will get to where this commission will get to vote hopefully early in april and again the caveat is how long the department of justice will take. that is the introduction, questions, commissioner dejesus. >> i'm thankful for the public for coming tonight. every time you speak, you give us a lot of ideas. i knew we were going to be reviewing the use of force. i knew that was coming and i know it was talked about sending it to a community for getting feedback. while i'm sitting here and listening to the audience it makes sense and there is a concern that we are voting tasers in. as we are evaluating this,
yeah, these orders have tasers in here and going out to the community to be evaluated. a lot of work is going to come back with tasers already included. it sounds like the cart before the horse. the real issue is we want tasers in the san francisco department. where it seems like a backdoor way of getting tasers into use of force. i'm really glad that you are here because i was going along with this process and this is first time i'm seeing the use of force and clearly it's there. they have an order here which basically has a taser recommendation here for target areas. reasonable effort should be made, which is something a taser international. why can't we shoot lower or
shoot in the armor leg or somewhere else. we can't do that with a gun but we are going to do that with a taser. for tasers, we are going to shoot them in the leg, but if we have a gun, we are not going to shoot them in the leg. if we have a gun, officers should shoot in the leg. and tasers take no liability for killing anybody who is shot. so that's a concern. i really think we need to take a step back by saying are we voting to allow tasers in the department, if we are, if we make that determination. then we go forward with this evaluation. i think it was a wake up call for me. but now i think it's a little back wards.
i want to put it out there that i do agree with you and i think this rush all of a sudden to have everything done and we have to deal with the preliminary questions whether we want to arm this department with tasers. that's one thing. i also hear in the press if we had tasers, things might have been different for mario woods. we have the baton and nobody talked about the baton. my understanding the sharp edge training of the baton is is part of that sharp edge training. we keep skipping over that. if we had tasers what would happen with the baton. a lot of this wouldn't have happened. if we waited for a sergeant to arrive at the scene, this might
happened. if we had five officers, this might not have happened. this is to say this might not have happened. i have to say, i have gone to community meetings. i have not gone to all of them. but the community meetings i have gone to, bayview and the tenderloin, the ones that i have gone to, we don't wasn't tasers. when it was asked who wants the tasers and it comes down to the department and the mayor. that's a concern that we are not listening to the community bringing it forward when we don't want tasers. one of the reasons when we were bringing this up is there is an article on january 28th, in the chronicle where they did this study. it's raw data. 37 actual firings and 204
instances where officers threatened to use their weapons. the data shows that officers were more likely to hold their fire when they were white and 67% of the time when they are were african american or latino. it's in this particular article and i did see it here basically recommended that if you are going to use tasers that you have a use of force report as you put up here is great. and they should document that.
it's concerning to me that these tasers are going into these communities when we already have real serious issues especially facing trust. so, those of some of my concerns. i have also one of the things from reading the tasers when they tase they hold the trigger down. so you are not getting one dose. you are getting six doses and the voltage. are we going to have trainers disarming this or are they aware of giving voltage after voltage. from the last demonstration that people died because of too much voltage. there is questions about did cars. i do agree with a lot of things that
the community said and i'm glad that you have come. your input is valuable. if we are going to have use of force, irregardless if we vote for tasers or not, we should have quarterly use of force reports where it indicates all reports to use and break it down by every community where it was used, in the mission, here or park side, wherever. and really break it down and analyze and when it's being used, and the race of the person and the analysis whether or not the use of force is complying with the policy or if the policy has to be changed. i think if you look at los angeles has a very thorough use of force report and it's something we are lacking and i think the chief has put it in here and i appreciate that.
and we have the data and does policy have to be tweaked or guidance has to be given. those are some of my concerns regarding tasers. i do want to tell the community, i saw these at 4:00 this afternoon. it's the first time i'm reading these here. i just really question whether or not we should send these out as they are to a community gathering of specialist, public defenders, acou, the police department and everyone getting together and evaluate whether that should be done.
>> i never voted on tasers. what we did is we slowed it down and we had community members. many people are here nodding their heads. we had the conversation and reviewed the data. the intent which is really important here is the reason that i have set up this process is to ensure that we actually hear from people who have strong opinions. it is up to the chief to present this department what he thinks is going to respond to this challenge. he has done that and now it is our job to evaluate whether or not we want to provide tasers in the way it's asked. it seems to me if we put this on next week, commissioner
dejesus, for people to understand this, we are doing a disservice to a dialogue that's happened and the fellow commissioners you are very well versed in this, too people haven't had a chance to learn this issue. the process is about seven more weeks but it will involve more input. the intent behind this is that this is fundamentally about reengineering use of force. i think it's a shame that the only thing we are talking about are electronic control devices. we are giving a lot of credit to a particular company in the way we are talking about. what we should focus on is we have a policy before us. the first thing this policy says is the sanctity of human life t department is is committed to the sanctity of human life led
meeting to cut it out. i'm not saying do it next week. but we have to do it as a step. >> i want to say that i agree with commissioner loftus. we have to evaluate and reevaluate the use of force in san francisco. this policy which most of us are just saying, we need to cross-reference it with many of the ideas and information we got from the community forums. i need to hear what the occ has to say about these particular policies. commissioner dejesus did discuss a lot of issues that should be in the use of force portion of this policy. i'm not sure that they are
all in there, but i think we need to put it out to the community as well as to other stakeholders to see what they think about this policy. we need to draft it. it's not as if we have time. we need to move this process along. we need to make the change now. let's read the policy and see what we have here. let's go through the process of understanding what's in here. for the department bulletins generally their not passed by the commission but if it's in the use of force or element or weapon,
we have to consider that. well, we have to vote on that. whether or not this fits in with the use of force i'm not quite sure of. i'm sure you have an opinion and commissioners have an opinion and the readers need to understand that they need to have an opinion. let's just read and understand that. >> mr. marshall? a lot of people asked about mario woods. they asked why don't you have tasers and they say why? and i
said people don't like tasers. that's just a statement that i have heard. the way i see this is there is a bunch of things and this is going out to the working group that are new and different and mreernl i want every idea that anybody thinks might, i want every idea in there. they may come back and say they don't have any ideas in there. they may reject the whole thing and start from scratch. fine, that's okay. but i want every idea in there. and i know the chief and doesn't matter how i feel about it. it's going to be working by
a voting group. we are not voting on anything. we are throwing ideas out there. i want to see all the ideas out there. if you don't like it, put a red line through it and bring it back. we are listening to ideas. that's what we did with body cameras. we had to put them all out here. just god forbid there might be somebody who thinks differently. i know it's hard to imagine. they should be able to also say, yes, i do, that's okay. okay. and that's the way, i think it's called democracy. that's the way it works.
can we at least put it out there? okay. you don't like what i said, fine. this is not being voted on. this is being put out to people and we are going to get a reaction. that's all it is. >> we have to have order. commissioner hwang? >> we need to have some serious discussions around use of force. that's what i was coming to this meeting to talk about instead we have a room full of folks talking about this taser device. i have not been through the previous debates. this is a controversial issue that is going to overwhelm our other discussion around the use of force and the entire focus will be on whether or not to adopt acd.
it's such a big issue when discussing that it should be considered separately from the use of force policy. i also think we need to think about the fact that we are already rolling out body cameras which is a new piece of technology for officers. i think we should give officers time to acclimate to the body cameras and get used to the technology before they add something more to the tool belt. i did offer that piece and my thinking we need to focus on what the department is doing well right now what mr. louis is talking about cit and the rolling out of the academy. i think we need to learn and this is how we are training our officers to deal with the greatest degree of crisis. what can we learn from there to deal with folks in a less
crisis. whatever lessons we learned to apply to the general community. i want to think about expanding and learning about, i want to go to this blue program about the academy. that sounds like a great program i'm going to try to go to it as much as i can and explaining things to the folks so there is a procedural adjustment. as i talked with the chief in the academy. it sounds like the academy is talking about great things and talking about what is happening at the academy and talking about demilitarization at the
academy. we need to talk about the current use of force on the policy. because what's on paper, i don't know what is happening on the field. those are things we need to learn about and what we need to do and my biggest concern within the short timeframe, if we are going to consider electronic control devices that it's going to overwhelm our discussion and the level of thinking that we are going to do around tasers is different than the use of force. >> what is your proposal about moving forward? >> i think we should separate out issues. >> in what order? >> to what we are doing well and focus on the use of force policy but not discussing tasers at this point in time. >> okay, commissioner? >> i just want to thank president loftus and the chief. this has been a very rapid
and response to a trajic -- tragic events. this is the sanctity of human life. nobody disagrees with the sanctity of human life. that's what the department has brought to the commission. commissioners have not had a chance to look at that. that is the sanctity of human life. i have had hearings regarding the use of devices, i have heard the pros and the cons. now the first time i have ever heard is that we would use these devices if passed by the commission only extremely limited situations if an individual is carrying a sharp weapon
and not just an individual fighting with the officer and the officer is trained with defibrillators in the car. that is not a bad starting . for discussion. but we have to have that use of force in discussion. if there is anybody out there and we can find another weapon as the tasers and the officers can use, it's not about tasers. please let me speak. >> point of order. >> if you can find that magic device. you heard from the mental health commission. we have training. we have trained officers, but we would like to have multi-trained and that's the goal. what we need to do is we have to look at each level. we have heard spoken at one
of our community meetings. we have a very important part. a use of force is never pretty whether or not it's an officer having to put their hands-on somebody, whether they have to hit somebody, hitting them with a baton and use of pepper spray. there is a delicate balance that we have to protect the officer's safety. nobody brought that up. at what point is there are safety is a concern. we need to balance those things and we need to have an open discussion to take away from the commissioner had a great line, no need for a diatribe. let's have dialogue. when can we get to the . where we have the right thing to do. this department has moved forward with commissioner loftus and we are taking the steps. work with us and be open minded and see what we
can do. i can tell you we have reviewed officer involved shootings and i have to review this and look at each other and say if there was one other level use of force, would we use that tonight. we don't take that lightly. work with us, not against us. >> commissioner, dejesus. >> let me say this, i do want to thank commissioner loftus because of the concern of the shooting did propel us to action. i did agree to go along with this process. i have to say i saw for the first time the documents of today. i have listened to the community and i am changing my mind. that is all there is to it. i'm thinking we do it in a different way. i just say we do it separately and don't include that part because it's an explosive part and i don't see the
community asking for that or the officers asking for that. there is a lot in here, there is deescalation of force. i agree we should serve the taser from these documents. the last thing i want to say is when we put this script together it should be a different working group than we have for the cameras. when we have the cameras we have all of the organizations and we have the department, the poa, different members for the office for justice and other groups. but this particular one, if you are going to leave the taseers in there, we should have people from the cit work in there i think we should have someone from car in there
and life force and black lives matter representative in there. >> well, we've spent a lot of time on an item that we are not supposed to be for discussion today. >> it's on for discussion, but not action. >> it sounds like we are taking the time to argue something that we are not really arguing. my issue is all the comments are about tasers and not about the document. a lot that was questioned are in the document. if you have taken the time to look at it, probably you are looking at all the pieces and not just one. i think should you be open
to reading the entire document and looking at and being able to give your input to everything. like i said if you have other suggestions to what police officers can use in this particular case instead of tasers, bring them to the table. but i don't think you can kill one thing without looking the entire set of policy because there is the position of looking at people in a different way before you pull out a gun, taser, anything. just look at the policy. i don't think you can look at this policy separately because people are against it. some people are for it. so, i'm sorry, but i feel that we need to ask you to look the
entire document before you have an opinion on just one specific area. we want to hear from you and we want to hear from everyone with an opinion. this just needs a lot of input. >> mr. marshal? >> are you saying because this is a lightning rod. i just want to be clear that the working group and the department of justice and everyone else is is going to be looking at this that it shouldn't be in there
because it could be a lightning rod, is that what you are saying? >> essentially just tonight's discussion was around more the use of force is hijacked by one particular element within the use of force which i think merits a separate discussion. nobody looking at the good parts of the policy and other parts of the policy. >> i got that, but are you saying the working group won't be able to do that. i guess that's all i'm asking. if it was something that could possibly be considered. i'm asking you possibly because there are other things in there that might be a lightning rod and those folks haven't showed up. that's my only
point. this is a very narrow position of tasers. it's much narrower than anything brought forward before. i guess i'm looking at the working group, the department of justice, i want to be able to give them credit for handling something like this. >> just to take it in reserve, when tasers are raised before, they don't say we should look the entire use of force policy because they are separated out. i'm saying let's work on the use of force policy first and not focus on the tasers. i don't think the magic fix for the problem here. i think it has to do with the attitude and training. >> i think the point is
very well taken. i think that tasers is a much bigger conversation in the use of force. i think we have to look at the lay of land we are in and as with the conversation with the body worn cameras, process does practices and procedures does matter. with your point there is a danger. if we are not going to talk about tasers and we are not going to hear what department of justice has to say about tasers and talk about deescalation and then this commission is going to vote on tasers. i think there are some problems in doing it that way, every commissioner has a right to vote no, but once the department has asked for this as part of what we've asked which is a reengineering use of force and the
department is saying and you don't have to agree, none of us have had the time to decide whether we agree yet, that their point in order to get the 15 minutes of time that we know could reduce the likelihood of an officer to use this force, that electronically controlled device that would be part of a shield a part of reengineering it. i think i understand your concern that it distracts from the larger conversation and i would just urge all of us commissioners to use, to be leaders in this conversation and continue to talk about all of these aspects in these orders and we will vote on them one by one and the taser proposal will be included and up or down and everybody commissioner has the ability to say one way or the other. when we have the opportunity
of the working group that is going to include young people mental health advocates, i think it's a mistake for this commission to proceed. that is reason we are proceeding as we are and i appreciate everyone's concerns. but i think in order to make an informed decision, we have to review this. >> we asked to be a reevaluation of the use of force. there is tasers in there and a considerable amount of taser information in here. the question i'm raising is is are we going to vote on the process on did i miss the vote. i don't remember a vote coming in here. now we have these things and the question are we going to do it the way you
want to do it through a committee or consider this separately. that's a process issue for me. >> part of what i will say is that the departmental general order actually doesn't authorize electronic controlled device commissioner dejesus. it's a bureau order which actually normally doesn't require this commission approving it. i don't know, chief as to why you structured it that way. i will say part of my job as commission president is to proceed and set up the process in the agenda. that is not a matter of something that we vote on. chief suhr? >> first i don't want people to think that shields were left out. shields are not a force option. shield is defense. it's not a force option.
the reason this bureau has to come here is because it involved an additional weapon that has not been authorized. it's just like when we change anything it might be a force option it has to come to the commission for approval. again, it's a bureau order for the special operations and not the entire police operation. it has to be in the enforce operation to have it. >> commissioner hwang? >> in mine mind this is an analogy. it comes around christmastime and you talk to your children about sharing and the principal of christmas an generosity and spirituality and all of these things and you give your kid
there is a specific group. if every officer was getting these devices and not giving it time for the use of force policy to be integrated into the department, i would say oh, my god! we can't do that. we are going to have cameras and this. no. this is going to be very limited. so my feeling is is that it is being introduced as part of this total picture for the department. so let's, you know, i'm doing this same thing that i'm telling everybody not to do. we are arguing something that is not up for a vote. the time we come up for a vote as whether or not we want to put tasers in the policy or not we will take a vote. >> my point, it may not even make it back here. it may not. it maybe like a
bill in congress. it may not get to the third point, but at least considered by the same body. >> okay. anything further on this matter? okay. chief, would you continue your report? >> yes, as stated in the media, the department in the office will review policies and procedures. we did have an initial meeting yesterday. we med met the san francisco team -- they discussed the collaborative process for listening through assessments in the community where there will be no police in the assessment phase in the department where they will review members of the committee, other departments, other agencies and the commission
and their recommendations and implementation monitoring phase which where they will give us a list of recommendations you the but they won't wait to give us a list. as they go along if they notice something that could be done better to tell us immediately. they were brought up in the las vegas initiative by the time they got to giving them the recommendations after they had already been moved on. with that, we hope that's also the case here. there will be a core assessment team. that has yet to have been introduced and we of course will have a dedicated command staff member and organizational structure to work directly with the collaborative review process, the 21st century of recommendations and other departments
perhaps behavioral sciences because cit will be part of this use of force forms, perhaps different directives to modify the policy and prospect to open these orders after 20 years and they were very receptive to look at those while we are going through the process. we are encouraged that this is the right way to go and it will be a lot of work and the expectation of the department will be high and we will meet them. finally before we get to the budget presentation is review of super bowl. everything in the city went well. the department and all the agency and certainly the men and women who put the time and effort. it was a huge event.
there were probably well over 1 million people in the city. we had very few problems criminally. we had about 8 arrest for drinking at the nfl experience. we worked with the demonstrations to facilitate so people could be heard. there were no arrest at any demonstrations. then the san francisco international airport, the crowds were almost unprecedented. they had an unbelievable amount of private aircraft and they worked down a vehicle checkpoint to prevent any long times at the curb. it all went very well and
and they also facilitated arrest and i don't believe any arrest were made. >> point of order. let's hear from everyone. >> traffic was an issue all week long in the city. i believe tomorrow the super bowl city is supposed to be completely dismantled and we should be back to normal. with that, i would like to introduce our chief financial officer captain mcguire who will present >> ma'am, if you are not able to follow the rules of order, it will not help. thank you, chief, welcome. >> good evening, thank you, president loft yours, commissioners,
good to see you. chief. my name is catherine mcguire, the chief financial officer of the department. to start, i want to give you a quick overview and reminder about the process. tonight i will be presenting what is a base budget and minor judgment that will go to the mayor's office on february 22nd and during the period of february and may we will work with the mayor's office on enhancement that are be presented here and additional enhancements that the mayor may feel is appropriate. and then the mayor's office adds a capital and it enhancement by the committee over seeing those sources of funds. at that point the mayor receives the balance budget on june 1st
and the mayor that is chance to go before the board of supervisors and present the budget of finance in june at which point the board of supervisors will adopt the budget in july. in december, the mayor's office released instructions to cut our general fund budget by an on going 1.5% in each of the next 2 fiscal years. the budget we intend to submit to the mayor's office does not include such a cut. with that. i will start with an overview of the budget. so tonight this is what i will be talking about. i will sort of walk through the budget at a high level, also provide a sworn hiring plan update. i will talk about the expanding police cadet program and we'll also talk about in the context of our budget proposal
and what we'll be working with the mayor's office on the recommendations from what will be the department of justice's collaborative reform review and president barack obama police reform task force recommendations and i will talk about what's to come about our facilities in the coming year. as you all know our budget is approximately $577 million. on the revenue side, we are supported primarily by the general fund which is citywide fund. the state also provides about $51 million from a public safety sales tax which is a half cent sales tax and that is from allocations and grants from various programs including narcotics and
alcohol and licensing enforcement. it includes a total of $800,000 and for testing and training and pedestrian safety. the $8.4 million includes in cooperative agreements with other departments is the work that we provide to other departments for policing. >> other revenue in the department includes private donations and private grant. the private donation consist of a private donation for our cadet program which is matched by city funds as well. finally, b funds and -- fee fines and charges and state legislative fees and fines
which include fingerprinting and traffic fine and that totals $1.4 million and then the other $1.4 million remaining there is included is from the administrative fees we collect. on the expenditure side, you all may know 88% of our budget is represented by salary and fringe benefits. the remainder includes social services primarily for rent utilities, litigation and judgment claims. that is about $6.4 million. it and software licensing about a million and coping and training expenses around $1 million. we also have a budget of
$4.9 million for materials and supplies expenses. $2 million for uniforms and equipment. about $500,000 each for office supplies, computer and software supplies. our capital outlay $6.3 million, the bulk of which is replacement cars for our fleet and another million for the body camp program. is services provided by other departments represent $47.4 million of our budget, those are primarily workers' compensation expenses totaling about $15 million, department of technology services at about $12 million. city owned facilities and utilities about $11.6 million and $5.5 million and
a matter of other services as well. so as i mentioned, we provide police services. we provide serves to mta, the port, library, human services agency, treasure island, moscone convention center and public works and bureau. i'm happy to answer any questions as i go or at the end. which brings us to the 88% of our budget which is positions in the department. so as you can see we have approximately 2889 fte's
other status than full duty. that brings our total available full duty sworn staff down considerably. so, full duty really represents sworn members who are available to the chief to assign and deploy in any manner he needs. those 300 non-full duty members include academy recruits and airport funded academy recruits and non-other other types of full duty, military, distribute built, administrative leave and family leave and temporary modified duty. this is a plan that will ensure that we get to mandated staffing levels. you have seen a slide
similar to this in the previous years and seen a slide of full staffing by june and you have seen a hiring plan that will put us at the mandated staffing by june 2017. and in the 3.5 years since the full hiring began we began hiring 27 police recruits. 466 officers have retired during that time. we are always playing catch up. there is another 100 who will retire. we need about 200 more recruits to get to that mandate of 1971. we have a private partnership which
we have been able to reinitiate the police cadet program and last year we were able to fund 30 police cadets that were frozen meaning unfunded. and we increased that in the 15-16 budget to 60 positions with that public private partnership and all of those positions are filled and they are still continuing interest in the program. so i should have led with this, cadets and college students between 18-25 who attend school in san francisco. as i mentioned there are two pots of money that are approved by committees that over see capital and it investments citywide. so on the capital side we do have multiple projects both at
the district station that are in progress in the current fiscal year including the mission statement that will match the valencia side of the station and we also have a bunch of roof replacement, carpeting and painting and equipment replacement in areas throughout the city. 16-17, we have e ser 2 bond funds available to the department of $30 million to part of public safety bond packages that have been rolling out to improve earthquake safety around the public safety building. this $30 million will go to making ada compliance and other
disability improvements. they will improve drainage repair and parks and plumbing and in tenderloin and the range and more comprehensive overall improvement at the academy and the stable. anyone 16-17 we are submitting additional request. those request are already planned and funded. in 16-17 we are also proposing $1.5 million improvement to the property facility that will include, that will triple storage and secure the property better and will also be safer for staff in the event of an earthquake. then i have a question here. two things, one, on the e ser bond 30 million, does that have anything to do with the hall of justice or is
that the same bond with anything being done at the hall? >> e ser 2 does not i don't believe includes anything for the hall of justice. however there are other proposals going in front of capital for that purpose. >> okay. my next question is, i think referenced earlier the body cameras are coming out of this overlay. is that in this section? >> no, it's not in this section is. last year the funding for that project did go to it. the earthquake committee, however because we are competing with a lot of other departments, couldn't fund it and the mayor's office decided to include it in our operators budget. the mayor's office decided
to put it in >> good morning everybody welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance question meeting for wednesday february, 10, 2016. i want to thank jennifer low and charles for covering this meeting. do we have any announcements? >> please silence all cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the february 24th board of supervisors agenda.